Posted on 12/03/2021 11:02:25 AM PST by Navy Patriot
A prosecutor says the parents of a teen accused of killing four students at a Michigan high school were summoned a few hours earlier after a teacher found a drawing of a gun, a person bleeding and the words “help me.”
Oakland County prosecutor Karen McDonald made the disclosure Friday as she filed involuntary manslaughter charges against Jennifer and James Crumbley, the parents of 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley.
McDonald says the gun used in the shootings at Oxford High School was purchased by James Crumbley a week ago and given to the boy.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
She’s very disjointed in her thinking as seen in the letter she wrote to Trump.
Hearing now that the parents left the night of the arrest for their safety....I would have left too. Now they're coming in for the arraignment it's being reported.
I have a problem with the Prosecutor who first of all is a drama queen and enjoys the media attention. That's quite obvious. Plus she's creating the story before all the evidence is in so the media will run with it.
This is my problem with this - so far it's all based on everyone recharacterizing what someone else said.
So does "previously promising" mean the attorney reached them and they said "yes we're coming in"?
Or did the attorney speak out of their butt when the AG called?
AG: We're going to arrest the parents of your client.
Atty: Ok, I'll call them and tell them to come in.
AG: I reached the attorney and the parents will turn themselves in.
Atty: calls but gets no answer, oops!
Press: After promising to come in, parents gone!
Logistics, logistics, logistics - the basis of critical thinking:
1) The only contact has been between law enforcement and the parent's lawyer.
2) The lawyer says they have been unable to reach the parents.
Those are the only two things I could call "facts" here.
So if the lawyer can't reach the parents, how did she let them know to come in? If the lawyer did reach them at first, then I'd expect to see an explicit statement in that regard.
Not seeing that makes me think there is still a good chance that this is just a communication screw up and we just don't have enough info yet to conclude either way as to whether or not they are running.
It sounds like this is more than a show trial.
What parents buy a kid with behavioral issues a real gun and hand it to him?
Easy, I didn't discuss the evidence, and I didn't proffer an opinion on guilt or innocence.
You take the position that I must give an opinion on guilt or innocence because you have ordered me to do it, and it must match YOUR opinion of guilt.
Congratulations, you have just proved your desire for a Soviet Show Trial.
No one may disagree with you and no one may remain neutral and unbiased.
Everyone must proclaim the defendants guilt BEFORE the Trial, and We MUST have that Trial for the World to see.
Ok, thanks for checking through it. Good to have two sets of eyes.
See my post #52.
Yes. I wouldn’t be surprised if the parents of the slain children sued them.
Many millions of teenagers don't kill people despite some access to guns. Of those many millions, perhaps tens of thousands have psychological problems or personality disorders.
We are a nation with a Bill of Rights and a Second Amendment. It is unreasonable to expect that there will not be some evil teenagers whose behavior doesn't rise to criminality until they day they commit murder.
If the killer in Waukesha had been a teenager would we be talking about putting his parents in prison?
“..put two and two together.”
Guess they have difficulty with addition because they didn’t add it up before people ended up getting killed.
Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.